Building the internal business case for filing

Immigration teams lose this argument by making it an immigration argument. The decision is being taken by people who evaluate a recurring cost against a one-time cost, and the proposal has to be written in that language.

The one page

Five short blocks, in this order. Anything longer gets skimmed and the skimming picks the wrong sentence.

1. What is stuck. One line. Form, filing date, elapsed time, and the agency's own posted processing time for that filing period. The gap between the last two numbers is the entire factual case.
2. What it is costing per month. A single figure with three visible components underneath it. Use the cost model and present the conservative end of the range.
3. What has already been tried. Premium processing where available, service requests, Ombudsman, congressional inquiry — with dates and outcomes. This block does double duty: it satisfies the reader that the cheap options are exhausted, and it is the same record a court will want.
4. What is proposed and what it costs. Filing fee, service, counsel, stated as a single number. Say plainly whether the quote is fixed or hourly.
5. The crossover. Monthly carrying cost against one-time intervention cost. If the intervention pays for itself in under a quarter, say so in those words.

The five objections

"Will this annoy the agency into denying it?" The order compels a decision, not a particular decision, and the decision remains reviewable on its merits afterwards. The honest version of the answer is that a weak petition gets answered sooner — so review the petition before filing, and say that you have.

"What are the odds?" Resist the temptation to quote a success rate. The meaningful statement is about the mechanism: the government's cheapest response to a delay complaint is usually to adjudicate, which moots the case. That is what the company wants, and it is not the same thing as winning a ruling.

"Are we suing the government?" Technically yes, and the framing matters. This is an administrative petition asking a court to require an agency to meet an existing obligation. It names officials in their official capacities. It is not adversarial in the way the phrase implies.

"Does this set a precedent — will everyone want one?" Possibly, and that is manageable with a written threshold: filing is considered when the delay exceeds the posted time by a stated margin, ordinary channels are exhausted, and the carrying cost clears the intervention cost. A policy is easier to defend than a series of ad hoc decisions.

"Who finds out?" Federal filings are public. The complaint recites processing history, not commercial information. If the organisation treats any litigation as reportable, involve communications before filing rather than after.

Who has to agree

• Finance approves the spend and will focus on the crossover.
• Legal confirms the company can be a plaintiff and checks the litigation policy and any disclosure obligations.
• HR owns the employee conversation, which needs to happen before filing, not after.
• The employee must be comfortable. In most employment-based cases the beneficiary joins as a plaintiff, and their consent is not a formality.

Get the employee conversation right. Being told that the company is going to sue the government about your case lands differently depending on how it is framed, and the framing is: we are asking for a decision, because the waiting has a cost for both of us.

The threshold worth writing down

Companies that handle this well decide the policy once, calmly, rather than case by case under pressure. A workable threshold has three tests, and all three must be met:

• The case exceeds the posted processing time for its own filing period by a stated margin
• Premium processing is unavailable, already used, or has itself lapsed
• Documented service requests and at least one escalation have gone unanswered

Written down, that turns an emotional recurring argument into a checklist. It also means the file that supports a filing is being built automatically, from the point the case first goes slow — which is exactly what the TRAC analysis needs.

Questions

Who signs the engagement letter, the company or the employee?

Usually both, because both are typically plaintiffs. Clarify at the outset who is the client, who pays, and what happens if their interests diverge.

What if the employee does not want to file?

Then it generally does not proceed. Their case, their exposure, their decision — and pressure applied here creates a different set of problems.

Should this be a standing policy or a case-by-case call?

A written threshold with case-by-case application. The policy prevents the argument being relitigated every time; the case-by-case review prevents filing on weak petitions.

General information, not legal advice. Rules and processing practice change; verify against the agency's own published figures and take advice on your own facts.